Amazon jumps on e-book lending bandwagon with the Kindle

Kindle owners will soon be able to lend e-books to their friends, but some …

Attracted to the Kindle, but put off by the inability to lend your e-books to others? Amazon is changing that. In an announcement posted today on the Kindle Community site, Amazon said that it would be rolling out e-book lending on its popular reader. Sometime "later this year," Kindle owners will be able to lend purchased e-books (one time only, per book) to other Kindle owners for a period of up to two weeks. During that time, the original owner will be locked out of the loaned title.

One important caveat: whether or not an e-book is lendable is up to the publisher or rightsholder. If Atlantic Books decides P.J. O'Rourke's Peace Kills shouldn't be passed around electronically, it will be trapped on your Kindle, sadly unsharable.

In the coming weeks, Amazon will also make Kindle periodicals available via its various free Kindle apps. If you subscribe to the Kindle edition of the Chicago Tribune, but forgot to bring your reader on the train, you'll be able to browse the broadsheet in its electronic form on your favorite iOS device. Amazon promises support for Android and other devices down the road.

Amazon is coming late to the e-book-lending party with the Kindle. Barnes and Noble's Nook has had the ability—with identical restrictions—since it launched last year. Better late than never, but it's unfortunate that you're locked out from reading a book you lend out. It's one behavior from the physical world that need not be present in the digital realm, especially as you can only lend the title once.

Ugh, yeah, lets mimic "lending" of real books with digital ones. We'll charge the same price for the digital copy that you can't resell, require a reader upwards of $200 to actually *read* the book, and put arbitrary restrictions on the nature of the lending. This is sure to save the publishing industry.

The entire idea of "lending" an eBook is anachronistic. It makes no sense at all, and hopefully everyone will realize that soon. It's as silly an idea as reselling an eBook. Those are physical actions that don't translate to electronic data without a lot of artificial nonsense.

The greatest benefit of the internet is that we can copy information to whoever wants it effectively for free. Once artists/authors/publishers realize what a huge advantage that is then we will likely see a huge boom in the sales of all digital artforms.

Only lend each book once, ever? Totally lame, Amazon! I am now less likely to buy your product.

So, you're less likely to buy it now that you can lend a book once, rather than the zero times you had before?

Quote:

The greatest benefit of the internet is that we can copy information to whoever wants it effectively for free. Once artists/authors/publishers realize what a huge advantage that is then we will likely see a huge boom in the sales of all digital artforms.

That's... odd logic. Copying information for free and selling it are kinda diametrically opposed to one another.

Sometime "later this year," Kindle owners will be able to lend purchased e-books (one time only, per book) to other Kindle owners for a period of up to two weeks. During that time, the original owner will be locked out of the loaned title.

The entire idea of "lending" an eBook is anachronistic. It makes no sense at all, and hopefully everyone will realize that soon. It's as silly an idea as reselling an eBook. Those are physical actions that don't translate to electronic data without a lot of artificial nonsense.

Totally. But it's equally silly to be charged almost the same for a digital book as a printed physical book (sometimes more).

Until eBook prices hit a more realistic (lower) price point, buyers are going to continue to be annoyed that they can't lend or sell what they've bought!

The greatest benefit of the internet is that we can copy information to whoever wants it effectively for free. Once artists/authors/publishers realize what a huge advantage that is then we will likely see a huge boom in the sales of all digital artforms.

That's... odd logic. Copying information for free and selling it are kinda diametrically opposed to one another.

This could be awkward. So which of your friends do you choose to let read your ebook for free and simultaneously shaft your other friends who may want to read it? Also, what happens if you lend the ebook to someone and life happens and they don't get around to reading it right away? Two weeks is too short. A month would be more reasonable. Where's the harm?

I'm not sure I understand the second half of Xavin's post, but I think that while the lending process doesn't make sense logically, it does make sense in that consumers understand the concept already. The difficulty is in the terms. For example, there is no reason to be limited to two weeks: it could be an indefinite lending, with the original purchaser able to "take it back" whenever they want (or the lendee to "return"). People understand that concept, and frankly most people would be fine with that model since it has a direct parallel to physical books. Sure the, the publishers might lose out on one sale, but at least it wouldn't be a whole bunch.

My mother and her sisters have gotten around this by each using a kindle tied to the same account: one buys it, and all of them can read it. Sure, they share all the books, but hy, they share ALL the books. given the inexpensive cost, its not that bad a deal (and since they all live in different states, its way easier for them to share).

it's unfortunate that you're locked out from reading a book you lend out. It's one behavior from the physical world that need not be present in the digital realm

Huh? But that's the whole point - if 2 people want to read the same book at the same time, they both need to buy a copy. The whole notion of selling data is founded on the creation of artificial scarcity, so lending a book in this case needs to be a trade-off in which you deprive yourself of rights while granting them to another person for a limited time, maintaining the scarcity.

It need not be present only if you think artificial scarcity is rubbish and it's OK for the consumer to need not to pay the creator.

Explain this "one time only, per book"If it is one time per book and thats it that book will not be lendable again then that just sucks and is just a stupid idea might as well not roll out this feature!

Psst...if your friend logs in with your Amazon account, they can download all of your books, and then continue reading them after they log out and return to their own account. This only allows 5 or 6 devices per Amazon account (including multiple devices owned by the same person, of course), but since it's unlimited, this is the only real way to share books with the Kindle.

The artificial lock out while "lending" I wouldn't mind, philosophically, but the once only, controlled by the publishers isn't okay on the Nook or the Kindle. It simply encourages piracy by implementing far tougher restrictions for no better prices than you get with actual printed materials. What publishers are really doing is trying to keep print going as long as they can, of course, and maximize profits, without considering the frustration they generate in early adopters as relevant.

Psst...if your friend logs in with your Amazon account, they can download all of your books, and then continue reading them after they log out and return to their own account. This only allows 5 or 6 devices per Amazon account (including multiple devices owned by the same person, of course), but since it's unlimited, this is the only real way to share books with the Kindle.

I do not believe this is correct if you log in to another account on the Kindle afterwards. It will be wiped and your account info will be synced.

I can confirm this in another week when my Kindle gets to me loaded with books from my sister's account.

That's... odd logic. Copying information for free and selling it are kinda diametrically opposed to one another.

Not at all. People are willing to pay for things and to support artists/authors that they like, they just have to feel like they got a fair deal out of it. There are numerous working examples now of how giving away free copies of books (Baen, Cory Doctorow) actually increases sales. There are also examples of how selling things really cheaply and extremely easily (Steam sales, Baen Webscriptions, all the cheap iOS apps) ends up making up for the lower price with higher volume. Piracy has been ubiquitous for over a decade in books, movies, music, TV, and anything else you can think of, yet everyone is still making a living.

Quote:

Calling it "odd logic" is being extremely nice.

It's just not "common sense" logic, because as we can see by silly ideas like lending ebooks, people have trouble changing their mindset and accepting that even though things don't work at all like they used to, they still work.

Quote:

It need not be present only if you think artificial scarcity is rubbish and it's OK for the consumer to need not to pay the creator.

Artificial scarcity is rubbish. You can go download anything you want right now for free. The cat is well and truly out of the bag, and it's had a litter of kittens. The only way that getting paid for creating works that can be transmitted as bits will work in the future is if people decide they want to give the author money. Creators need to make that as easy as possible and they will end up with a lot more fans (some paying, some not) than they would have if there was still a $10 and a trip to the bookstore barrier to entry.

Not at all. People are willing to pay for things and to support artists/authors that they like, they just have to feel like they got a fair deal out of it. There are numerous working examples now of how giving away free copies of books (Baen, Cory Doctorow) actually increases sales.

Here's a counterhypothesis: giving away free copies of books can help you increase sales if it helps you attract publicity that expands your potential audience. If no one will have heard of you either way, it won't do you much good. If you're Lady Gaga, it's not clear that there's any more publicity to be gotten that you don't already have, so giving away copies of a single simply translates into lost sales. And, of course, you could infer from my counterhypothesis that the free model doesn't scale -- if everyone starts giving things away as well as selling them, none of them will garner publicity for doing so.

Xavin wrote:

There are also examples of how selling things really cheaply and extremely easily (Steam sales, Baen Webscriptions, all the cheap iOS apps) ends up making up for the lower price with higher volume. Piracy has been ubiquitous for over a decade in books, movies, music, TV, and anything else you can think of, yet everyone is still making a living.

Totally agree with this. You'd think businesses would have some concept of the elasticity of demand.

Edit: wasn't paying attention to the last sentence I quoted there. In the music industry, "everyone" doesn't still make a living. Hundreds of thousands of people were let go because music sales declined. That's not a value judgement -- maybe it was worth it for the societal benefits of digital music, maybe the RIAA had it coming. But while modest piracy and modest amounts of freely accessible content has done little to hurt books, tv, and movies, it's pretty clear that piracy en masse didn't help the music industry in any way that other industries will be lining up to emulate.

The greatest benefit of the internet is that we can copy information to whoever wants it effectively for free. Once artists/authors/publishers realize what a huge advantage that is then we will likely see a huge boom in the sales of all digital artforms.

That's... odd logic. Copying information for free and selling it are kinda diametrically opposed to one another.

Calling it "odd logic" is being extremely nice.

Yeah I know, it's not logical, but strange as that may be it's actually what's been observed in the marketplace. it's one of those Freakonomics things that works backwards from what you'd think at first glance. So the reality is much different than the doom-and-gloom being preached by DRM vendors, publishers without a clue, and the RIAA.

Fact: Baen has had a 'free library' and sold DRM-free e-book versions of it's books (at reasonable prices) for around 10 years now. They've kept track and there's a consistent track record of an author's sales rates going UP each time a book is put up in the library for free download. (and that even includes sales of the very same book that was put up for download.. yes you read that right, the SAME book, queue the twilight-zone theme)

I personally think it has to do with people using lending and borrowing to discover new authors etc, or as a way to access older books that are not on bookstore shelves and harder to locate. Once they find an author they like, when new books come out they tend to BUY rather than wait and borrow. Some find a book via download and then go out and buy the hardcopy (there's no other reasonable explanation of the sales numbers) Or if they can get the backlog cheap, they'll buy those books also.

If the availability of 'free' books via borrowing from friends, libraries, or for sale cheap at used bookstores destroyed sales of books, then the publishing industry would have been killed off ages ago.

The publishers won't go for it. They will want to keep the publications locked down. This doesn't do anything to address the inconvenience and frustration involved with DRM.

make that 'stupid and shortsighted publishers...' and you'd be right.

But not everyone in the industry is bereft of clues. Some publishers have been giving away free books for years to drive sales (of the very same books, and others by the same author). Others have gone DRM free.

The light is starting to dawn to a few of them (dawned a nearly 10 years ago for a few others, e.g. Baen) What we as consumers need to do is patronize the hell out of the ones that get a clue and reward them for being progressive

This "feature" has only one purpose --> taking a bullet point away from B&N.

I'm actually hopeful that library lending may be next. Then it would truly relegate the Nook to 2nd place forever.

That would be much better than this. At that point I might add a Kindle to go with the Nook, especially as the spouse lives on Amazon and can't be bothered to go to a physical library anymore. It would also help if they had actual working Kindles in the stores, Target's at least, instead of those almost useless demo models.

I got a Kindle as a gift a few years ago, and the inability to lend books is one of the main reason I refuse to purchase any books from the Kindle store. We generally pass a purchased book around the family, that can't be done with the Kindle books unless you want to pass off your Kindle off to each family member in turn. Thankfully there are a lot of places on the net to obtain free ebooks without DRM, easily emailed or transferred to anyone's device.

Psst...if your friend logs in with your Amazon account, they can download all of your books, and then continue reading them after they log out and return to their own account. This only allows 5 or 6 devices per Amazon account (including multiple devices owned by the same person, of course), but since it's unlimited, this is the only real way to share books with the Kindle.

I do not believe this is correct if you log in to another account on the Kindle afterwards. It will be wiped and your account info will be synced.

trimeta is correct. A friend and I tested this nearly a year ago. I I broke the link between my account and his Kindle a few hours after creating it; he then re-associated his Kindle to his own account. He still has the ebook he copied down to his Kindle. So do I.

I applaud this move by Amazon. One loan only, and only for two weeks, does not sound like much, and obviously a lot of people will bellyache about it.

But it is more than we had, and it shows that Amazon are in fact listening and trying to make ebooks more like paper ones in the ways that count. I am confident that Amazon will continue to move in this direction. They may not move as fast as people would like, but authors and publishers really do have a lot of incentive to be conservative about these things. If you'd spent a year writing a book that might have, say, $15,000 of profit in it, you'd probably feel the same way. Don't forget that most of the books you see in the bookstore will probably pay their authors less than this, over their entire print lifetimes.

Psst...if your friend logs in with your Amazon account, they can download all of your books, and then continue reading them after they log out and return to their own account. This only allows 5 or 6 devices per Amazon account (including multiple devices owned by the same person, of course), but since it's unlimited, this is the only real way to share books with the Kindle.

I do not believe this is correct if you log in to another account on the Kindle afterwards. It will be wiped and your account info will be synced.

trimeta is correct. A friend and I tested this nearly a year ago. I I broke the link between my account and his Kindle a few hours after creating it; he then re-associated his Kindle to his own account. He still has the ebook he copied down to his Kindle. So do I.